Re: Why ? : Wed Oct 27, 2021 4:44 pm  

Jack Burton wrote:

Having used the railways in countries like China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Holland, Germany, France and Scandinavia, I can honestly say the UK railways, and service is are light years behind these countries.

So given that you agree with Nod, that makes us the 12th best railway in the world, not to mention that it must make you 5 times as knowledgeable about railways as him

Re: Why ? : Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:43 pm  

Jack Burton wrote:

Having used the railways in countries like China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Holland, Germany, France and Scandinavia, I can honestly say the UK railways, and service is are light years behind these countries.

The safety record in the UK is excellent but, service and "quality" of trains is second class.

It doesn't help that projects like HS2 take forever to sort our and then costs spiral out of control.
We are certainly behind the main EU countries.

Re: Why ? : Thu Oct 28, 2021 11:44 am  

Jack Burton wrote:

Having used the railways in countries like China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Holland, Germany, France and Scandinavia, I can honestly say the UK railways, and service is are light years behind these countries.

Given the travel restrictions I doubt you will have travelled on any of these trains recently - comments like this need to be put in context. I can't remember the last time I caught a train and it was late - I catch a train on an average three times a month. Nothing wrong with the longer distance trains or the trains that do Leeds Ilkley etc. Leeds to Manchester - they are a disgrace.

[Bullseye]

Re: Why ? : Fri Oct 29, 2021 8:37 am  

The issue with the trans pennine trains is that there isn't enough capacity to match the demand. Or that was the case before the pandemic.

[Mild Rover]

Re: Why ? : Fri Oct 29, 2021 4:32 pm  

My experience of rail travel has generally been pretty positive. Given that I’ve travelled a fair bit, I’m surprised how rarely I’ve used trains abroad now that I think about it.

Re: Why ? : Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:32 am  

Bullseye wrote:

The issue with the trans pennine trains is that there isn't enough capacity to match the demand. Or that was the case before the pandemic.

That is true - 50% of the time I had to stand the whole journey from Manchester to Leeds

Re: Why ? : Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:23 pm  

How many of the train franchises have been taken back into public ownership because they failed.

Re: Why ? : Sun Oct 31, 2021 8:47 am  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

How many of the train franchises have been taken back into public ownership because they failed.

The majority fail because they cant make sufficient return - that leads to reduction in investment in staff and trains - downward spiral. How many have had a go at the East Coast Mainline

Re: Why ? : Sun Oct 31, 2021 10:27 am  

Zoo Zoo Boom wrote:

The majority fail because they cant make sufficient return - that leads to reduction in investment in staff and trains - downward spiral. How many have had a go at the East Coast Mainline

The East Coast Main Line is a classic example of the foolishness of the privatised railways. GNER were gifted upon privatisation the Uk's most modern railway with a fleet of largely brand new, very high quality trains. And operating on a very lucrative route they made a lot of money. Now Jim Sherwood was a canny businessman and had already made hundreds of millions off the UK state by buying assets dirt cheap and selling them on for vast profits. But GNER didn't even need that side of it, they were gifted a brand new railway and enjoyed the rewards of what our tax money had built throughout the first franchise period. And, thanks mostly to the quality of the infrastructure they'd inherited and the nature of the route GNER became a supposed example of how privatisation was working.

Come the second franchise period and it was obvious there was going to be competition from other bidders who'd seen how much money GNER had made. And thus began the same scenario over and over - bidder wins franchise based on utterly implausible growth forecasts, signed off by idiot transport minister who sees the millions in franchise payments they're going to receive down the line. After a few years the franchise holder realises it can't make as much money as they've promised to pay and "hands the franchise back".

Now SeaCon went bust of their own volition but the others just walked away scot free. This isn't how a market should work. You overestimate your forecasts and enter into a contract that you can't pay for and you go bust. But the government simply can't allow the ECML to stop operating whilst that's sorted out because it would lead to chaos. So it always has to be there to step in.

As with so many of these idiotic schemes it's been a case of privatising the profit and the state keeping the risk. It's a grotesque parody of the free market and needed stopping long before Covid did for it.

Re: Why ? : Mon Nov 01, 2021 11:07 am  

The Ghost of '99 wrote:

The East Coast Main Line is a classic example of the foolishness of the privatised railways. GNER were gifted upon privatisation the Uk's most modern railway with a fleet of largely brand new, very high quality trains. And operating on a very lucrative route they made a lot of money. Now Jim Sherwood was a canny businessman and had already made hundreds of millions off the UK state by buying assets dirt cheap and selling them on for vast profits. But GNER didn't even need that side of it, they were gifted a brand new railway and enjoyed the rewards of what our tax money had built throughout the first franchise period. And, thanks mostly to the quality of the infrastructure they'd inherited and the nature of the route GNER became a supposed example of how privatisation was working.

Come the second franchise period and it was obvious there was going to be competition from other bidders who'd seen how much money GNER had made. And thus began the same scenario over and over - bidder wins franchise based on utterly implausible growth forecasts, signed off by idiot transport minister who sees the millions in franchise payments they're going to receive down the line. After a few years the franchise holder realises it can't make as much money as they've promised to pay and "hands the franchise back".

Now SeaCon went bust of their own volition but the others just walked away scot free. This isn't how a market should work. You overestimate your forecasts and enter into a contract that you can't pay for and you go bust. But the government simply can't allow the ECML to stop operating whilst that's sorted out because it would lead to chaos. So it always has to be there to step in.

As with so many of these idiotic schemes it's been a case of privatising the profit and the state keeping the risk. It's a grotesque parody of the free market and needed stopping long before Covid did for it.

That's exactly how the free market works - your liabilities are limited to the money you invest - if trading doesn't pan out how you had forecast you run out money you go bust. Everyone goes in with their eyes open - if the government hadn't done their due diligence correctly who is to blame? If creditors lend too much money who is at fault?

The government know they have to keep the line running then surely they need to select a franchise that is going to deliver on that basic premise. If no franchise can make a suitable return based on that scenario the government have a problem - they take it back into public ownership costs rise and we all have to pay.

We come back to public ownership - everybody has to pay to keep public services going even if they never use it - yes I get it for education but not for buses and trains.